Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/20/2012 11:26 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
>>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
>>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
>>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
>>
>> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
>
> Yes - it's a good idea to spell out what not being bold means in somewhat more detail ;-).
>
> As I've noted earlier, here's an example of a somewhat more detailed standards organization
> anti-trust policy (see the bulleted list of six Sensitive Topics):
>
> 	http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm
>
> Notice of that policy is given as part of every INCITS standards meeting (it's part of
> the INCITS functional equivalent of the NOTE WELL), and the policy is enforced.  While
> it doesn't happen very often, I have seen the policyi enforced in practice.
>
> I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an
> exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the
> very first answer.

And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)

If there's a way to usefully say "don't be bold about anti-trust" that
doesn't sit at the top of that slippery slope then I'd be interested
in seeing that.

S

>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:10 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
>>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
>>>> were at the time.
>>>>
>>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
>>>
>>> I appreciate that ... as to your main point:
>>>
>>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>
>>> Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was:
>>>
>>> 	Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings,
>>> 	including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all
>>> 	applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.
>>
>> Right. "Don't be bold" is fine advice. But not really a policy.
>> (I'd also be interested in the answer to John Levine's most
>> recent question [1].)
>>
>>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
>>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
>>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
>>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
>>
>> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
>>
>> S
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/current/msg00052.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Stephen Farrell
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
>>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
>>>> were at the time.
>>>>
>>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of
>>>>> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants
>>>>> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies),
>>>>> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --David
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Stephen Farrell
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
>>>>>> To: Thomas Narten
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell<[e-mail]>     writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background
>>>>>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which
>>>>>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do
>>>>>>> need a policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above two seem to be the choices here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     >    But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by
>>>>>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What
>>>>>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make
>>>>>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other
>>>>>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the
>>>>>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find
>>>>>>> itself in a Heap of Pain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an
>>>>>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that
>>>>>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required
>>>>>> that's new compared to what we already have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>